Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring
> budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
> of millions to billions of dollars.
>
This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the
other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, and
should still be considered so even if/when the Foundation meets the goals
set in the strategic plan.
--Mike
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:BLPLang is not currently
used at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summa…
This can be construed as the WMF wanting to reach the people of the
world to provide educational contents AND English-dominate them.
The fact that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Trans#Core_set_…
is now marked as "obsolete" disappoints me. It seems to mean that
multilingualism has been rejected.
Can the notion that a key document like a strategic plan is ready for
release when it exists in only one language be discussed ? Or is it
already too late ? Has multilingualism definitely lost the game ? For
example because most of the supporters of multilingualism have left
the management sphere of WMF.
If you look at Jay Walsh's user page on meta :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jaywalsh you can find an indirect
acknowledgement that Canada is a multilingual country. Is
multilingualism worse off or better off in the Wikimedia Foundation
than it is in Canada ?
Should http://blog.wikimedia.org/ remain 100% English ? Why not have 1
or 2% of non-English with English translation ? 5 or 10% of
English-with-some-translation ? Which degree of openness to
non-English language should be shown on http://blog.wikimedia.org/ ?
What is the purpose of linking to the blog from non-English main pages
such as http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Portada anyway ?
Would it not be fairer to tell people "we have nothing pertinent in
your language on this website. Please learn English first and come
back. See you again" ?
Shouldn't a number of English-only contents be moved to the USA, UK,
Australia, etc. chapter websites ?
Picking up on the comment by Tobias about less intrusive fundraising,
I would make sure we are pursuing the following:
1 Build up a past donors database, communicate with them effectively
and then as long as they donate annually make sure they aren't
irritated by ads for people who haven't donated at all. (I gather
something is now being done here, but I know it wasn't in the past).
2 Get tax deductible/refunded status in as many countries as feasible.
Especially countries like the UK where the tax is refunded to the
charity rather than the donor. (I know the UK chapter is working on
this, and that it isn't easy here, but there are probably other
countries with similar systems where we may not even have started).
3 Ramp up Merchandising. Unlike almost any charity I can think of we
can offer Xmas gifts for every taste, including for dads. Middle aged
men are notoriously difficult to buy presents for, we are one of the
few charities that could market calenders, mugs or mousemats suitable
for fans of milhist, wrestling, NASCAR or indeed flowers, waterfalls
and scientific elements. This is a real opportunity for the
fundraising team to work with the Featured content crowd and the
wikiprojects. It could also make a serious contribution to my annual
Xmas present buying headaches.
4 Use IP location to not put up ads in countries where we are unable
to accept donations in the local currency.
Most of the charities I've worked with in the past have not actually
made money on the first donation they get from a new donor, generally
it costs more to recruit a new donor than they give in the first
donation. The real income stream is from repeat donations in future
years and from merchandising. Wikimedia is in the amazing position
that it can get new donors for less than the cost of recruiting them.
However that is only true because the advertising that we do
internally is treated as free. In reality that advertising brings with
it a big overhead in terms of annoyance to both our volunteers and our
readers. I'm not suggesting that we put a monetary value on that
internal webspace, but I would suggest that we measure that annoyance
better and set some targets to minimise it. Money raised per ads
served would help, as would excluding IPs and users who've already
seen an ad and not responded. We might also consider not serving ads
on pages that are disproportionately viewed by minors
WereSpielChequers
>
> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>
> -- Tobias
This is not 100% off-topic, since he talks about Wikipedia off the
top. But it's worth watching regardless of that: it is a really
lovely, inspiring talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/wael_ghonim_inside_the_egyptian_revolution.html
Thanks,
Sue
Some text from his Wikipedia article below:
In January 2011, Ghonim persuaded Google to allow him to return to
Egypt, citing a "personal problem".[12] Ghonim had been running a
Facebook fanpage about Mohamed ElBaradei, which was being used to
promote democracy and organize protests in Cairo.[13] Ghonim
disappeared on 27 January during the nationwide unrest in Egypt. His
family told Al-Arabiya and other international media that he was
missing. Google also issued a statement confirming the disappearance.
Many bloggers like Chris DiBona and Habib Haddad campaigned in an
attempt to identify his whereabouts.
On 5 February 2011, Mostafa Alnagar, a major Egyptian opposition
figure[14], reported that Wael Ghonim was alive and detained by the
authorities and to be released 'within hours'.[15] On 6 February 2011,
Amnesty International demanded that the Egyptian authorities disclose
where Ghonim was and to release him.[16]
Ghonim was released on 7 February, after 11 days in detention. Upon
his release, he was greeted with cheers and applause when he stated:
"We will not abandon our demand and that is the departure of the
regime."[17]
The same day, Ghonim appeared on the Egyptian channel DreamTV on the
10:00 pm programme hosted by Mona El-Shazly. In the interview he
praised the protesters and mourned the dead as the host read their
names and showed their pictures, eventually rising, "overwhelmed," and
walking off camera. The host followed.[18][19] In the interview, he
also urged that they deserved attention more than he did, and calling
for the end of the Mubarak regime, describing it again as 'rubbish'.
He also asserted his allegiance to Egypt, saying that he would never
move to the United States, the homeland of his wife.[20][21] Becoming
a symbol of the revolution in Egypt,[22] Ghonim stated that he is
"ready to die" for the cause.[23] "At the end ..., he gathered himself
for a few seconds and tried to make the most of the platform
[El-Shazly] had given him. 'I want to tell every mother and every
father who lost a child, I am sorry, but this is not our mistake,' he
said. 'I swear to God, it’s not our mistake. It’s the mistake of every
one of those in power who doesn’t want to let go of it.'"[18]
On 9 February, Ghonim addressed the crowds in Tahrir Square, telling
the protesters: "This is not the time for individuals, or parties, or
movements. It's a time for all of us to say just one thing: Egypt
above all."[24]
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
So how cool is this?
http://copyright.co.tv/
Refresh the page, click a few links, ... anyone see any attribution?
Teofilo check your moral rights, I think they have been mislaid.
Hi,
We sent information around about Wiki Loves Monuments a few times on several
lists, but it is also available on WIkimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 . It
would be great if you could find enough volunteers to let the Czech Republic
participate!
The strategy weekend was indeed no entertainment and a lot of working on the
Wikimedia Nederland strategy. It was working groups, general discussions
etc. Unfortunately I am not able to report on the details (yet)
The board interest meeting is a concept we introduced last year to lower the
threshold for people to candidate themselves or show interest. That way they
can get their qeuestions answered before they take the decision. It also
gives people an opportunity to realize that they might not be a good
candidate after all if there are many better candidates. It mainly involved
informal chatting and talking with current and former board members and
exchanging information and experiences.
Best,
Lodewijk
2011/3/5 Juan de Vojníkov <juandevojnikov(a)gmail.com>
> Hey Lodewijk,
>
> it is interesting, I haven't red about Wiki Loves Monuments yet so I hope,
> I'll get it in Wroclaw!
>
> I would like to ask about STRATEGY WEEKEND. What does it mean? Two days
> working on issue? No entertainment?
>
> And BOARD INTEREST MEETING, that sounds interesting! Could you tell us more
> about this? Is it just about questions from potential candidates to the
> board members, or how it works?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Juan de V.
> WMCZ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapters mailing list
> Chapters(a)wikimedia.ch
> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/chapters
>
I appreciate that we may only be able to exclude donors who are logged
in readers from banner ads. But it is better in my view to say "Yes we
can do that, but you would have to tell us your username and be
logged in to avoid ads" than to tell them "Sorry we can't switch off
those ads".
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:12:07 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Raising funds without being quite so
> annoying to readers
> On 5 March 2011 14:05, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Picking up on the comment by Tobias about less intrusive fundraising,
>> I would make sure we are pursuing the following:
>>
>> 1 Build up a past donors database, communicate with them effectively
>> and then as long as they donate annually make sure they aren't
>> irritated by ads for people who haven't donated at all. (I gather
>> something is now being done here, but I know it wasn't in the past).
>
> The first part is certainly being done. The second part is impossible.
> How are we supposed to know if a reader has previously donated? All we
> have is their IP address, which could very easily have changed since
> they donated.
>
>
French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1
An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his
authorship and his work.
This right shall attach to his person.
It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may
be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author.
Exercise may be conferred on another person under the
provisions of a will.
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
"perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be
waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly
as human rights.
In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery
slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human
rights.
A few nice translation extensions have become mature recently, and are
being considered for use on the Projects:
John Vandenberg commented recently that Wikisource has been looking to
have the Babel extension installed, and Siebrand notes the Translate
extension is ready for wider use, say on Meta or Mediawiki.org:
Siebrand:
> have a look at kde.userbase.org for a real-life example of a page translation
> implementation in a MediaWiki wiki[1]. A description of the features and
> process is available at translatewiki.net[2].
[1] http://userbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALanguageStats&code=nl
[2] https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Page_translation_feature
> what's keeping it [from being used] currently lies outside translatewiki.net's staff span
> of control (community voice and WMF resources).
For anyone who currently works on direct translations (of help
messages, primary sources, &c), check out the kde example above.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> John, if you don't mind, can we move this thread to foundation-l?
> sure.
>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:16 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is also interest in the English Wikisource community.
>>> The babel extension doesnt break anything, so I think en.ws would be
>>> happy to try it.
>>
>> Yes. That would be grand.
>
> I have started a formal vote in the existing discussion
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Babe…
>
>>>English Wikisource is starting to focus on this for 2011, and knows it
>>>needs better software.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Translation
>>>
>>>We are considering developing this functionality on top of the
>>>proofread page extension that we use.
>>>
>>>http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ProofreadPage
>>
>> That's great. Wikisource needs its own wiki newspaper to cover the
>> cool things happening there :)
>
> we used to have a nice newsletter.
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:News/Archives
>
> and the multilingual
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:News
>
>> Main namespace pages on all language Wikisources, rather than being
>> separate language projects, would usually be exact translations of one
>> another... so a future sort of Translate extension might be
>> implemented on all of them.
>
> Yea, the primary gap is the ability to translate between subdomains,
> whereas extension:translate currently only works on a single project.
> This gap might be reduced by enabling scary page transclusion between
> wikisource projects for only the 'Page' namespace...
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
In his 10th anniversary address Jimmy Wales says: "Today is a great
moment to reflect on where we've been."
What my reflection brings up is that the single thing that probably
raised more controversy among the widest range of Wikimedians is not
the content of articles about sex, celebrities or geopolitical and
linguistic conflicts, but the procedures of appointing administrators.
It should have never been a big deal, but it is, in all projects in
all languages.
The "administrator" privilege lumps together several very different permissions:
* rollback
* blocking and unblocking
* deleting and restoring pages and versions of pages
* viewing deleted versions of pages
* protect and unprotect pages and edit protected pages
* some PendingChanges/FlaggedRevisions-related permissions, which i
haven't quite figured out yet :)
Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given
liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible. I always
believed in it, and since most of these actions became visible in the
watchlist a few years ago, this belief became even stronger.
But some re-thinking is needed. The administrator privilege, as it is
now, should be retired and broken up to several separate privileges:
* block/unblock
* protect, unprotect, edit protected, config PendingChanges on the page
* edit highly technical pages - the MediaWiki: namespace, common.css, etc.
* revert, delete/undelete, view deleted
The permission to revert, delete and undelete unprotected pages can be
given to those users who can create and move pages ("autoconfirmed").
There is no big functional difference between deleting a page and
deleting a paragraph in an existing page or doing a major re-write.
The difference between reverting and undoing is a matter of civility
and a lot of uncivil things can be done without permissions anyway.
Limiting these actions only to certain users is quite pointless.
Viewing deleted pages shouldn't be a big deal either. Deletion is not
so much eliminating non-notable topics and nonsense from existence, as
about separating them from encyclopedic articles. It shouldn't be a
big deal to let bored people read them somewhere. Eliminating
egregiously offensive and illegal content, major copyright violations
and BLP issues can be accomplished today with the oversight
permission.
Controlling Pending Changes, although i haven't figured out all of its
intricacies, is essentially an improved version of page protection. It
makes sense to give this permission to (many) selected people. It will
probably evolve over time, and i believe that it will evolve more
organically if conceptually separated from blocking and deletion.
Another comment about protection is that protecting system messages
(the MediaWiki: namespace) and sensitive CSS and JS pages (commons.css
etc.) is very different from protecting vandalism-prone articles
(Obama etc.). The protection of these technical pages and sensitive
articles should be a different concept.
The permission to block should be a separate one. Separating the
discussions about giving users the permission to protect pages and to
block vandals will not stop the holy wars, but it will focus them.
There will be no more comments such as:
* "User:PhDhistorian may be a good editor who understands
Verifiability and who can be trusted to edit sensitive BLP articles,
but he has personal grudges with User:FatMadonna and he may block her,
so he shouldn't be given the Administrator privilege."
* "User:VandalFighterGrrrl is excellent at patrolling RC, but she's
too inclusionist and shouldn't be given the right to decide about
content protection."
All of the above is formulated in the English Wikipedia terms. I
believe that the English Wikipedia policies for deletion, protection
and blocking make a lot of sense and should be adopted by all
Wikipedias, but this obviously can't be forced on any Wikipedia. Other
projects may have very different understanding of these processes and
it's OK. I'm only talking about the technical separation of the
privileges.
Now, fight.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore